Case Study Rewards

http://samedayessay.
com
1
The Impact of Rewards on Employee Performance: Case Study of Organisations

from Two Sectors in Nigeria
http://samedayessay.com
2
Chapter 1
Introduction
Overview of the Study
What with the constant changes occurring in the world today, especially with regards
to technology and innovation, there is a need for companies to reassess the manner
in which they communicate to both their employees and their customers. At the
same time, there is also a need for these companies to organise the tasks at hand,
design systems and processes, and re-evaluate and improve current management
styles (Harmon, 2007). This is especially needed in areas where the competition is
constantly increasing and consistently challenging. Two of these industries are the
banking industry and the hospitality industry (which the researcher shall discuss in
detail in the following sections of this paper). In this chapter, the researcher shall
provide a brief overview of the remaining sections of this paper, the aims and
objectives of this research study, and its rationale. In addition, the researcher shall
also provide a conclusion summarizing what this chapter shall be about, which shall
also be a recurring feature of succeeding chapters.
According to Dewhurst et al. (2010), there are other means to reward employees that
do not just focus on financial compensation. Some of these include the praise that
employees are able to acquire from their managers, the opportunity to take on
3
important projects or tasks, and even leadership attention. The latter refers to the
treatment of the employees by their managers in such a manner that the employees
are also considered to be as leaders as well. These three motivators constantly
appear on most research studies and are excellent means to encourage the
employee to work harder and produce better performance results. This is largely due
to the fact that the well-rewarded employee feels that he/she is being valued by the
company that he/she is working for. They are also encouraged to work harder and
better if they are aware that their well-being is taken seriously by their employers,
and that their career and self development are also being honed and taken care of
by their company. Thus, it is a constant and continuous challenge for companies to
really work on understanding what factors contribute to improved satisfaction levels
of their employees. Aside from working on satisfying their customers, it is crucial that
companies also work on identifying the motivators that boost the performance of
their workforce, and in so doing, make appropriate and sufficient offers for their
employees.
The Framework Utilized
It must be noted that the rewards provided to employees, regardless of the business
sector that they belong to, is not limited to financial rewards alone. In this section, the
researcher shall discuss the framework to be utilized for this study, which shall also
be the basis for the literature review (to be found in Chapter 2). The framework that
4
the researcher has decided upon is the work previously done by Frederick Herzberg,
who is recognized to have made notable contributions to the field of management of
employee motivation. According to La Belle (2005), different individuals have
different perceptions of rewards. For instance, some individuals may consider cash
as a sufficient and adequate reward for their efforts at work, while others may
consider holidays and material incentives (such as a car) as more rewarding in
exchange for their work. Others still, may consider a shift in the treatment that they
get from their leaders to be a more rewarding experience. For instance, some
employees consider being recognized by their leader as more rewarding than
financial incentives.
Among Herzbergs contributions to the management of employee motivation would

be the Two factor theory which is subcategorized into hygiene factors or
motivators. The Two factor theory is basically about the attitudes of employees
towards their job, which can either lead to satisfaction or dissatisfaction. One of the
subcategories (the hygiene factors) include the following- 1) working conditions, 2)
the level and the quality of supervision, 3) the company policy and administration, 4)
interpersonal relations, 5) job security, and 6) salary. Based on Herzbergs theory,
these hygiene factors do not necessarily motivate the employee to produce positive
developments in work performance. However, when there is a lack of, or excess of
any one of these factors, there is a highly likely chance that the employee may be
dissatisfied. Thus, the concept of Herzbergs Two factor theory is one that focuses
on understanding the acceptable hygiene factors that prevent the employee from
5
being dissatisfied. It must be noted though that hygiene factors do not do much to
motivate the employee and the management of companies has to seek other ways in
order to achieve this.
With regards to motivation, Herzberg identifies the factors that motivate people to be
lodged in 1) the nature of work that they do, 2) the sense of achievement that they
acquire from their work, 3) the recognition that they receive, 4) the responsibility that
is bestowed upon them, and 5) their personal growth and advancement. The main
idea behind such factors is that they may spell the difference in the perceptions that
employees hold with regards to their work and their relationship with their
organisation of choice. They are able to form a perception of how much their
organisation values them, and they are also able to assess their own self-worth.
Herzberg believes that such factors are the main driving force of satisfaction and that
they help boost the employee to work harder and better, due to the motivation that is
brought about. Put simply, motivators are able to increase internal happiness. On the
other hand, hygiene factors are only able to boost external happiness.
The following figure (Figure 1) shows the relationship between satisfaction and
dissatisfaction by using the traditional concept and Herzbergs Two factor theory.
Herzbergs work has shown the world that aside from a person being satisfied from
his job and being dissatisfied, the employee can also not be satisfied at all. In other
words, the opposite of job satisfaction is not job satisfaction, but rather, no job
6
satisfaction. In addition, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, but
no job satisfaction. It must be noted that both factors (hygiene factors and motivation
factors) must exist in order for the employee to be motivated in his work, in the best
way that he/she possibly can. If there are missing factors (whether they may be
hygiene factors or motivation factors), it is possible for the employee to be
dissatisfied and not able to perform in the best way that they can. If all the hygiene
factors are present and even when there is more than enough of hygiene factors
present, then it is possible that the employee would still not be motivated. Thus, in
order for managers to successfully motivate their employees, there is a need for
them to determine the appropriate and the sufficient motivation factors to use.
7
(Above: Figure 1)
Figure 2 (seen below) shows that even though dissatisfying factors are removed,
there is a possibility that the job will not make the employee satisfied. It is not
uncommon to see managers committing a mistake with regards to removing a
dissatisfying characteristic. They may assume that their employee would be
immediately satisfied or motivated, but unfortunately, this is not always the case.
8
(Above: Herzbergs Two Factor Theory).

Aims and Objectives
Through this study, the researcher plans to:
Objective 1: To determine the level of satisfaction of banking and hospitality
employees on their intrinsic rewards.
Objective 2: To ascertain the level of satisfaction of banking and hospitality
employees on their extrinsic rewards.
Objective 3: To identify the rewards that are positively correlated with employee
performance in the banking and hospitality sectors.
9
Objective 4: To ascertain if there are significant differences in the level of satisfaction

on rewards between banking and hospitality sector employees.
Rationale
In this study, the researcher has decided to focus on determining the impact of
rewards on the performances of employees who are both in the banking and
hospitality industries. The topic is of particular interest to the researcher because
employees who are involved in these two industries are those who are commonly
found to experience face-to-face interactions with customers. Aside from such
interactions, it is also possible that employees belonging to one of these two
industries may also keep in touch with customers through mediums such as the
telephone and the computer. Whichever way, these employees play an important
role in ensuring that service quality is delivered (Bettencourt & Brown, 2003).
However, having to deal with constant interaction with customers is not easy, and is
therefore subject to major organisational challenges- one of which is employee
retention. This is a major problem because in order to retain customers, employees
must first and foremost, also be taken care of (Tax & Brown, 2003). In this context,
there is a need for companies in the banking and hospitality industry to really focus
on determining how they can encourage their employees to be dedicated and
engaged with their work.
10
11
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Importance of Rewards
Schaufeli et al. (2002) stresses on the importance of rewards in order to combat

burnout, which is typically experienced by most employees on the job. Individuals
who experience burnout in their work, typically do not feel fulfilled. They also tend to
have negative outlooks, and they also approach the tasks at hand with less vigor and
dedication. In the later sections, the researcher shall discuss how important rewards
are to boost employee performance (particularly in the hospitality sector and the
banking industry).
In the previous chapter, the researcher mentioned that this study shall focus on two
service sectors, the banking sector and the hospitality sector. At this point, it must be
mentioned that in both these business sectors, there is a need for companies and its
leaders to invest in encouraging excellent service quality from its employees to its
customers. These days especially, more and more customers are demanding
excellent services. However, the reality is that the service quality orientation (or
SQU) being experienced by the customers, may not always be the same as that of
the employees (Wong et al., 1999). According to Bitner et al. (1994), once there
12
exists a divergence of perceptions with regards to service between the customers

and the members of the organisation, there is a likely chance that mediocre or
inferior service would be the result. Thus, in order to improve business results, there
is a need for managers and leaders to motivate their employees to work harder, and
to align their own interests with that of the customers. Further details with regards to
this subject shall be discussed in the later sections of this chapter.
Employee Motivation and Company Performance
In the 1960s, there were a number of theorists who conducted research studies on
an individuals motivation in the workplace. According to most of these theorists,
such motivation can actually be predicted, explained and influenced. One of these
theorists is Maslow (1943), who established the need hierarchy theory. According to
this theory, human beings have five needs and their goal is to first satisfy their needs
at the lower level. At this level, the needs of an individual are actually quite basic. For
instance, at this level, human beings seek to fulfil their physiological needs and their
security. Higher levels of needs consist of the individual wanting to satisfy his needs
for affiliation, gaining self-esteem and self -actualization. Put simply, Maslows work
focused on how the attitudes of an individual influence his/her own behaviours.
Making use of Maslows theory, Porter (1963) conducted a study that showed how
13
people in low level jobs were focused on satisfying their lower level needs. Such
needs include job security. They would only move to higher level needs if they are
also able to move to a higher job position. Of course, this would only happen once
their lower level needs have been satisfied. In a study conducted by Latham & Ernst
(2006), it has been suggested by the two researchers that managers should first
make sure to provide both salaries and benefits in order to make sure that the basic
needs of the employee are met. Examples of basic needs include food and
healthcare. Managers should also make sure that the individuals that they hire to
work for their company are those that can work and get along with their other
colleagues. Once such lower needs are satisfied, there is a highly likely chance that
the individual would then focus on building his/her self esteem through garnering
personal and professional achievements, in addition to self-actualization. The latter
refers to how an individual finds ways to maximize his/her knowledge and skills.
Compared to Maslows theory on motivation, and even Porters own research

findings, Herzberg states that employees would not be content through the
satisfaction of their lower-level needs. In other words, acquiring basic salaries and
being able to work in satisfactorily or average working conditions would not
necessarily make the employee happy with his/her job. Based on Herzbergs theory,
employees would highly likely seek for satisfying their higher-level needs (on the
psychological level). Examples of this are 1) recognition, 2) increase in responsibility
and 3) advancement or development and 4) the nature of the work being done. The
Two factor theory, which involved both the hygiene factors and the motivation factors
14
have been considered to be effective in boosting employee performance. According

to Herzberg, motivation factors are needed in order to motivate the employee to do
his/her job to the best of his/her ability. On the other hand, hygiene factors are
required to make sure that the employee is not dissatisfied. Herzberg theorized that
different individuals have different approaches to tasks. For instance, when an
individual decides to work out of necessity, then that kind of approach or action can
be concluded to be movement. On the other hand, if an individual decides to work
out of a want, rather than a need, then he/she can be said to be motivated.
Essentially, it can be said that when an individual wants to perform a task, there is a
high chance that the results of the task would turn out to be better. This is in
comparison to tasks carried out due to a need (Herzberg, 1968).
Use of Rewards in Motivation
According to Adams (1965), when it comes to research studies regarding reward

allocation, there are three common allocation rules. These include 1) equity and 2)
equality and need (Deutsch, 1975). Chen (1995) also considers that seniority has to
be a fourth allocation and this factor should serve as a principle of importance.
Kanfer (1990) states that employees are constantly involved in a social exchange
process wherein they contribute efforts in exchange for rewards. They also compare
the effort or contribution that they put in towards accomplishing a certain task and
acquiring rewards in exchange for the former. Deutsch (1975) considers the concept
15
of equality to refer to the rewards that employees receive regardless of the amount
of contribution that they provide towards their company. In addition, members of an
organisation should also receive rewards that are in accordance with their personal
need. For instance, employees who have more children may need more holidays to
spend time with their family, or more benefits, such as health insurance and
discounts or free education for their children. Finally, the concept of seniority refers
to the companys ability to allocate specific rewards for older members of the
organisation, who have proved their value by being loyal to the company that they
work for. Research studies in the past have mostly shown that when it comes to
individualistic cultures allocations that are equity-based prevail. On the other hand,
when it comes to collectivistic cultures reward allocations that are based on the
principle of equality are the ones that rely on equality rewards. Nigeria is a country
that is characteristic of being collectivistic when it comes to their culture.
According to Babakus et al. (2003), the perceptions that employees have with
regards to their reward climate influences their attitudes towards their employees. In
addition, the commitment of managers towards their organisation is also shown by
how the manager rewards his/her employees. Gouldner (1960) mentions the norm of
reciprocity, which focuses on the ability of organisation to accommodate the needs of
their employees, and reward them for their efforts. In exchange for the rewards
provided to them, employees should reciprocate by increasing their commitment
towards their organisation and their work, in addition to increasing their socioemotional bonds with their company and their colleagues.
16
Siegrist (1996) has established a theoretical model dubbed the Effort-Reward

Imbalance (ERI) Model places high importance towards the provision of rewards
instead of controlling the work systems and its structures within an organisation. The
main concept of the model is that the amount of work that an employee puts towards
work is a part of the socially organised exchange process to which society feels
obliged to repay. Such repayment comes in the form of occupational rewards.
According to this model, the rewards are provided to the employees through the
usage of three transmitter systems. Such systems include 1) money, 2) esteem and
3) job security and opportunities for career development. With regards to money,
Siegrist focuses on the provision of adequate salary to serve as an employee
reward. Boosting the employees self esteem comes in the form of an increase in
respect and support from the employees manager(s). Security/ career opportunities
may come in the form of promotions to higher positions, or the support of the
company to sponsor the higher education of their employees. Managers can also
invest in training sessions for their employees as their way of supporting the self
development of their employees. The EMI Model would like to stress another point.
Based on this model, if the management fails to reciprocate the efforts of their
employees (despite the high efforts provided, low rewards are given), there is a
highly likely chance that the employee may suffer from emotional distress, which in
turn may lead to health problems, a lack of motivation and an increased level of
absenteeism. A study conducted by Jonge et al. (2000) make use of the ERI Model.
The later study focused on the relation between rewards and the physical health
risks experienced by employees. Based on the results of the study, there is a
17
mismatch between the efforts devoted by the employees with regards to their work
and the occupational rewards that they receive. Based on the study, employees who
are not able to get sufficient rewards for their efforts are likely to experience health
problems such as emotional exhaustion, physical health symptoms, psychosocial
health complaints, and job dissatisfaction.
In order to be effective in rewarding employees so that there is an increased

improvement in their work performance, managers are advised to gain information
about Herzbergs theory, especially when it comes to the differences between both
motivators and hygiene factors. In order to have a workforce that is highly motivated,
there is a need for managers to first make sure that certain hygiene factors which
they have control over are being currently accepted by their employees. Such factors
may include the present work environment and the level of supervision that the
employees receive. For instance, if a manager constantly showers her employees
with praise, but fails to improve the working conditions inside the office, then the
words of praise would not have an effect with regards to increasing the employees
motivation.
In a study conducted by Probst & Brubaker (2001) it was concluded that the
difference between job satisfaction and dissatisfaction lies in the amount and the
type of rewards provided or given to the employees and the amount and type of
rewards that the employee expects he/she deserves. This idea is supported by
18
previous researchers, Magione & Quinn (1975) who consider both job satisfaction
and dissatisfaction to be the result of the perceptions of an employee with regards to
personal expectations about what and how much they deserve for contributing
towards the organisation that they work for. In other words, employees expect that
their contributions and efforts should be valued and given importance to in the same
way that they value their job and work towards accomplishing the tasks assigned.
According to a study conducted by Ahmad et al. (2010), employees are highly likely
to feel rewarded and motivated when they know that they are able to get fair pay
with regards to the amount of work that they do. In the study, the researchers stated
that employees are particularly concerned about discrimination with regards to fair
pay, and this may hamper their motivation levels to do their job well. In addition,
employees are also driven to work for their chosen organisation over a longer period
of time if they are paid fairly. For some employees, job security is also very
important, and for some, this can already serve as a reward. What with the current
economic situation, employees are concerned with keeping their respective jobs.
Furthermore, the researchers also concluded that the policies implemented by the
organisation should show equality instead of simply equity.
According to Nelson & Spitzer (2002) although cash rewards are welcomed by
employees, managers should never use this as a tool to motivate their employees to
improve their performance levels. Should this happen, there is a chance that the
essence of the reward would be forgotten. In a study conducted by (Bowen, 2000),
the researcher warns that managers should be aware of nonrewards. Such rewards
19
should be utilized sparingly, and should not be used all the time. They are also
described to be passive, and they do not necessarily lead to positive behaviours in
the long term. Furthermore, managers should make certain that when all applicable
satisfiers are satisfied, they need to determine the factors unique to every employee
that motivates him/her. It has been suggested by (Bruce & Pepitone, 1998) that the
best way for a manager to do this would be to simply ask the employee on what
he/she expects and what he/she wants with regards to the job at hand, and all the
conditions concerned. It is the responsibility of the managers to ask their employees
whether they would feel a higher level of satisfaction from their job if they are tasked
with bigger responsibilities. On the other hand, managers can also ask their
employees on whether they would be more motivated to work harder through offers
of promotions. According to Nelson & Spitzer (2002) one of the best ways for
managers to determine the top hygiene and motivating factors that boost work
performance among employees, would be through a trial and error method. In other
words, if a factor implemented does not work, then the manager can simply look for
another method instead.
Blau (1964) established the social exchange theory which has been applied in
various organisations in order to understand how both the organisation and the
managers play an important role in creating desirable feelings of obligation among
employees, thereby increasing their devotion towards performance development.
Based on this theory as established by Blau, it is said that employees who feel that
they are treated favourably by their superiors and their colleagues are more likely to
20
feel a higher sense of obligation which in turn, leads to positive feelings of obligation
and favourable treatment. In other words, employees who are given favourable
treatment are more likely to feel indebted to the party providing such a treatment,
and these employees therefore reciprocate such treatment.
According to Shore & Shore (1995), employees who are able to experience and
receive recognition for their work are also able to have a better perception of their
work, their workplace and the people they work for. Thus, there is a need for the
employer to really make an effort in showing the employee that his/her wellbeing is
of concern to the organisation and the management and that the contribution of the
employee towards the organisation is highly valued. This idea is further reiterated by
Buchanan (1974) who adds that the recognition of contributions towards the
organisation has a positive relationship towards increasing the commitment of the
employee towards the organisation and its objectives.
Skinner (1969) makes a point that offering rewards in exchange for hard work,
especially in service industries such as banks and other establishments in the
hospitality sector, is very important when it comes to influencing the perceptions of
employees. Through rewards, they are able to also shape their perceptions on how
they value certain concepts. Based on the operant conditioning theory established by
Skinner, behaviours that are rewarded have a high tendency to be repeated. Such
behaviours are also capable of being reinforced and employees tend to exhibit such
21
desirable behaviours more frequently. According to Kessler & Purcell (1992),

financial rewards provided to employees individually have a tendency to improve
culture that focuses on boosting the quality of performance. On the other hand,
according to Chiang & Birtch (2009), rewards that are non-financial in nature, such
as the provision of an increase in holidays, and increases in family benefits,
contribute towards the employee perceiving his/her workplace as a supporting and
caring organisation. Johnson et al. (1986) contends that by providing employees
with as much rewards as possible (in proportion to their work efforts), employees are
able to function more efficiently. They are also less likely to make mistakes in their
work, and managers are also able to successfully boost the morale of their
employees. This idea is further supported by Eccles (1991) who stresses that when
employees are able to see that their company really values and rewards certain
service behaviours, then the employees would also want to embrace or welcome
such values, and they would be able to exhibit desirable behaviours based on such
perceptions and the promise of rewards. On the other hand, when the employee
sees that their service efforts are not rewarded, then they may change their
orientations completely, and their desirable behaviours may discontinue and cease
to exist. A study conducted by Hinkin & Schriesheim (2004) concluded that there
exists a positive relationship between the rewards provided by the management of a
company, and the job satisfaction felt by the workers, and the effectiveness of the
work produced. Removing rewards that are specific to particular organisational
performance may give way towards a reduction in the effectiveness of the employee
with regards to his/her work, job dissatisfaction and a lack of role clarity.
22
Motivation among Nigerian Employees: The Banking and Hospitality Sectors
Service quality orientation (or SQU) was briefly mentioned in the earlier part of this
chapter. It is actually something that is influenced by the work environment of an
individual, the climate of the organisation (which includes the organisations work
practices, policies and operational procedures), and how the employee perceives
both the environment and the climate. It has been suggested by Bartol & Srivastava
(2002) that rewards are utilized by managers to show employees that their
behaviours are being observed by the organisation that they work for, and if
favourable, such behaviours shall be valued. In addition, these favourable
behaviours as exhibited by the employees shall be used to align interests between
the company and its employees, as well as its customers. Eisenberger et al. (1998)
stresses that the rewards provided to employees (with cause), allows companies to
direct, sustain and motivate desirable values and behaviours. Examples include:
knowledge sharing, increase in employee creativity, increase in quality performance,
and increases in customer satisfaction levels. Thus, according to Chiang & Birtch
(2010), managers need to understand the kind of role that the provision of rewards to
employees service quality orientation, which in turn, is crucial towards fostering
service excellence.
Buick & Thomas (2001) had conducted a study that sought to find out the levels of
burnout experienced by individuals who worked in the hotel sector (part of the
23
hospitality industry). Based on the research findings, it has been found out that
female employees are more likely to experience higher levels of burnout as
compared to their male counterparts. In the same study, which also sought to
determine the burnout levels of managers, it was determined that the main reason
for experiencing higher levels of burnout are due to the lack of adequate support that
managers are able to acquire from their workplace (and their colleagues), as well as
from their family. This idea is further supported by Cordes & Dougherty (1993), who
also conducted a study on the same topic. Based on the findings of the latter
research, it was found out that the primary reason behind burnout would be because
of the emotional exhaustion that employees feel while working for their respective
organisations.
According to Goodwin & Gremler (1996), the banking industry is in need of

employees that are both satisfied and motivated, for without them, customer
satisfaction levels would also be affected. This idea is also supported by Adelman et
al. (1994) who maintains that interpersonal relationships established between bank
personnel and the customers are a big driving force behind ensuring that a customer
is satisfied or dissatisfied. Reynolds & Beatty (1999) add that the relationship
established between the employees and the customers may lead to an increase in
value perception with regards to the banks products and services. When a high
perception of value is achieved, then it is also highly likely that the customer will be
satisfied, thereby bringing in more business for the bank.
24
Herzbergs Hygiene and Motivation Factors
In the very first chapter, the researcher discussed that Herzbergs Two factor theory
would be the focal point of this study. Again, it must be pointed out that the factors
that cause satisfaction are not the same as the factors that cause dissatisfaction. In
other words, dissatisfaction cannot be said to be the opposite of satisfaction.
According to Herzberg, the opposite of satisfaction has to be no satisfaction. There
are a total of top six factors that lead to dissatisfaction. These are 1) the company
policy, 2) the supervision received by the employee from his/her boss, 3) the
relationship established between the employee and the boss, 4) the working
conditions involved, 5) the salaries of the employee, and 6) the relationship that the
individual established with his./her colleagues.
On the other hand, the top six factors that lead to satisfaction include 1) the
employees achievement, 2) recognition, 3) the work itself, 4) the responsibility
undertaken, 5) advancement and 6) growth. It has been suggested that in order for
companies to be successful, especially when it comes to the performance produced
by their workforce, there is a need for the management to consider the factors
mentioned above. These factors then, must not only strive to avoid the incidence of
dissatisfaction, but it must also consider factors that are intrinsic to the work
involved, in order to encourage work satisfaction. It is absolutely important for
managers to take responsibility in making sure that they make the jobs in the
25
workplace as enriching as possible for the employees. This is a process that is

continuous. Based on Herzberg (1968)s theory, the job should be able to provide
challenges to the employee so that he/she is driven to work to the best of his/her
individual abilities. Once the employee is shown to possess increasing levels of
ability, it would follow that he/she should also be given further responsibilities that
are also challenging. If the company is not successful in maximizing the
characteristics of the job to go hand in hand with the full abilities of the employee,
then the company should consider rendering the task at hand to be automated
instead. On the other hand, the management can also consider replacing the current
employee with another employee who possesses lower skill levels. Put simply,
Herzberg iterates that if the abilities of an employee cannot be maximized, then it
can be assumed that he/she has a motivation problem. The main point of Herzbergs
theory is that the success of a task emanates from the abilities and effort of an
individual and not simply from external forces (such as that controllable by the
management) (Herzberg, 1968).
Empirical Studies Related to the Use of Tangible and Intangible Rewards in

Employee Motivation
According to Viteles (1932), money is not always the answer to ensure that the
employees in companies are constantly working. Thus, there is a need for managers
to consider other factors as well. Examples of this includes recognition, status and
26
job security. During the early 20th century, it was not uncommon to come across
another research study that concluded that a good job performance stems from the
employees satisfaction level with his/her job satisfaction. Thus, most researchers
during such an early period usually made conclusions that stated how happy workers
are those that are most productive. Recent studies however have shown that this is
not always true.
Johnson et al. (2010), conducted a study on how an employees motivation can

encourage an increase in commitment to his/her work. Based on the information
gathered by the researchers, it was found out that when employees work in groups,
they are likely to be more motivated in their respective jobs, as a result of collective
interaction. One of the main reasons for this is that employees are able to be more
conscious of the social norms that they adhere to, the values and the goals that they
follow, especially those that are being encouraged by the company itself. This can be
described to be a notion of identification and is one of the identified motivating
factors, according to OReilly & Chatman (1986).
In a study conducted by Herzberg et al. (1959), there are a number of situational

factors that may either help accelerate the growth of an employee or slow it down.
Herzberg, in his research studies, focused on investigating the mental health of the
participants of his study, all of whom were workers. He conducted interviews which
resulted in the conclusion that a person cannot simply motivate an employee as
27
most people would assume would be the case. In fact, what is even more
manageable is that an employee would be more motivated if the manager or the
leader can actually convert an environment to encourage self-motivation within the
individual.
Carlson (1974) stated that there are six ways through which one can learn about
impact assessment. These include 1) event logging, 2) attitude surveys, 3) rating
items, 4) system measurement, 5) system analysis and 6) cost/ benefit analysis.
Based on the researchers findings, these six ways are interrelated and each factor
has its own strengths and weaknesses, despite being used as effective assessment
tools. Other popular assessment tools include subjective estimation and economic
evaluation. For this study, the researcher has decided to make use of attitude
surveys, to be discussed in detail in the following chapter.
Conclusion
In this chapter, the researcher has discussed the concept of Herzbergs theory of
employee motivation, involving the Two Factor theory. The latter involves Hygiene
Factors and Motivation Factors which are both needed in order make sure that the
employee works to the best of his/her abilities. To bring increases in performance
levels, it is the duty and the responsibility of the management to take each factor
28
(whether hygiene or motivation) into consideration and apply these factors to boost
motivation levels inside the workforce. Previous researchers such as Maslow and
Porter have stated that employers should address the needs of the employees
starting from the lower levels. In other words, employers should take into
consideration the basic needs of the individual, since this is what would mostly
motivate them to work harder. However, Herzberg states that satisfying the lower
level needs of an individual such as the provision of food, shelter and security, the
individual may not necessarily be satisfied. Thus, in order to help boost employee
performance, it is advised that both hygiene factors and motivation factors should be
considered. Out of these factors, it has been found out that employees are more
motivated if they are challenged at work and they are provided with tasks that require
more effort and more responsibility.
Since the researcher wants to determine the factors that are considered to be the
most effective and most important in motivating employees, a quantitative research
approach shall be adopted. In the following chapter, the researcher shall discuss the
methodology of this research study, wherein attitude surveys shall be distributed to
members of the banking and hospitality industry.
29
Chapter 3
Methodology
30
Chapter 3
Methodology
Introduction
The current chapter presents the methodology that has been used in the research.
The justification for the use of the research approach is explained. This is followed
by a discussion of the descriptive-correlational research design which has been
utilized in the investigation. The non-probability sampling technique, purposive
sampling, has been described in the Sampling section. The secondary and primary
data gathering procedures shall also been expounded on in the Procedure portion.
The ethical procedures that have been complied with are also included in the
chapter. The chapter is concluded with the method of data analysis.
Research Approach
The present study adopts a purely quantitative research approach, which is aligned
with the objectives that it aims to attain. The quantitative approach has several
advantages. First, it is highly structured, which allows for the cost efficient and less
tedious data analysis (Schutt 2006). Typically, close ended questions are posed in
the survey questionnaire which is the tool through which the quantitative approach is
carried out. Such questions are direct and offer concrete options which the
respondent may choose from to represent his view on the subject (Creswell1994). In
addition, the quantitative approach allows for the computation of statistics, from
31
whose interpretation are derived the conclusions of the study.

The hypotheses that are put forth by the researcher are tested through statistical
outcomes, and the choice of statistical test are based upon the level of measurement
of the data; the validity of the instrument utilized for measuring the variables of
interest; the power of the statistical test selected; and the methodological limitations
of the research (Teddie & Tashakkori 2008,).
Statistics are the main bases for conclusions that are derived from a quantitative
research. Briefly, the method involves the deployment of a structured survey
questionnaire to a sample . The numbers generated from statistical analysis are
then interpreted substantively to arrive at meaningful insights about the phenomenon
being investigated (Creswell 1994). While there are advantages to this approach,
there are also certain disadvantages. For one, the quantitative approach does not
allow the in-depth probing of responses or the reasons behind respondents
answers. This issue is best resolved through follow-up qualitative analyses, in the
form of interview or focus group discussions. The latter are some means through
which responses may be profoundly understood, from the phenomenology or unique
experience of the participant (Denzin & Lincoln 2005).
In the context of the present research, the main intent was to determine the influence
of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards on banking and hospitality employees performance.
The thrust is to be able to generalize for all employees belonging to these sectors, at
least in Nigeria which is the setting of the study. In addition, the intent was not to
understand the experiences of the employees in an in-depth manner but rather to
32
make statistical generalizations from the data. The researcher thus decided to adopt
a purely quantitative approach for this purpose.
Research Design
The research design used in the current study is basically descriptive-correlational in
nature. Descriptive research permits the explanation of phenomena as they naturally
transpire and without intervention from the researcher (Bernard 2005). In effect, the
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards being experienced by both banking and hospitality
employees are described as they naturally occur within their respective workplaces.
To enable such a description of rewards, frequency and percentage distributions,
along with means and standard deviations have been used (Teddie & Tashakkori
2008).
In addition to being descriptive, the study is also said to be correlational in design
because there was intent to establish the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic
rewards on one hand, and the performance of employees on the other. Correlational
research aims to ascertain if there are significant associations between two variables
(Reid 1987). Finally, the study is also said to be comparative because there was
intent to statistically compare the means of banking vs. hospitality employees on
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. This justifies its being comparative in design, as well.
Sampling Plan
There are two populations of interest in the present research: banking employees
and hospitality employees, both residing and working in Nigeria. For pragmatic
purposes, only a sample from both populations have been enlisted to participate in
33
the study. The main sampling technique used was purposive sampling, which is a
non-probability sampling technique. In non-probability sampling, not all members of
the population have an equal chance of being enlisted onto the sample. In the case
of the current study, the researcher set forth criteria that are the basis for qualifying a
prospective respondent into the sample. For the first phase of sampling, only the
banks and hospitality institutions that meet the following criteria were used: 1) should
be an institution based in Nigeria; and 3)has expressed explicit consent for its
employees to participate in the study. Based on the number of letters which have
been sent out by the researcher, 5 banks and 5 hospitality companies have met the
inclusion criteria. Since there are a total of 20 questions in the instrument used, the
prescription of Reid (1987) has been followed in deciding on the sample size to be
culled from each industry. In following a 1:5 ratio of survey items to number of
respondents, the total number is 100 for each. A total of 240 accomplished
questionnaires have been gathered from banks and hospitality institutions, with 120
forms coming from each sector.
Procedure
There are two methods of data collection which were used in the research, namely,
secondary and primary data collection. To be able to build a comprehensive
background of the study, the researcher gathered material from books, journals, and
online references. The references which are in hard copy were from various
university libraries, while online references were downloaded from databases such
as Google, Proquest, Emerald, and Sage. The following search terms were used:
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, rewards in the banking sector, rewards in the
34
hospitality sector, employee motivation and rewards, and determinants of employee

motivation. The hits were initially screened for relevance based on their titles, and
re-screened manually after downloading. All relevant material were collated into a
review of related literature.
Primary data gathering was conducted through the use of a questionnaire. The short
form of the MSQ authored by Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist (1967) was
selected for the purpose of the present research. There was no need to ascertain its
reliability and validity indices because these have been established previously (see
Instrument section below). Before administering the questionnaires, it was necessary
to seek approval from banking and hospitality institutions in Nigeria whose
employees shall serve as respondents. From the 30 banks and 30 hospitality
institutions who have been contacted by the researcher, only 5 banks and 5
hospitality institutions gave their permission. The total number of respondents was
240, with 120 employees coming from each sector. The accomplished survey forms
were collated, encoded and statistically analyzed. Analysis was carried out through
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0. The statistics
that have been generated with interpreted in light of the findings of past empirical
studies.
Instrument
The short form of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) has been used in
measuring level of satisfaction with rewards. The instrument is the seminal work of
Weiss et al (1967). The researcher chose this instrument because it represents the
35
most comprehensive types of rewards that are not found in other measures. The 20
types of motivators or rewards were classified by Weiss et al (1967) as follows.
Extrinsic rewards include supervision-human relations, supervision-technical,
company policies, co-workers, and recognition. On the other hand, the following
rewards were grouped under the intrinsic category: activity, independence, variety,
social status, moral values, security, social service, authority, ability utilization,
responsibility, creativity, and achievement. Working conditions was not classified in
the MSQ manual, but Wernimont (1966) has categorized it as an extrinsic reward,
and this was adopted for the present study. The co-worker category was likewise
classified as an extrinsic reward. Cronbachs alpha for the instrument is acceptable
(Peters Jackofsky, & Salter, 1981).
The following are the items of the short form of the MSQ and the corresponding
categories: Being able to keep busy all the time for Activity; The chance to work
alone on the job for Responsibility; The chance to do different things from time to
time on Variety; The chance to be somebody in the community for Social Status;
The way my boss handles his/her workers on Supervision (HR); The competence of
my supervisor in making decisions for Supervision (Technical); Being able to do
things that dont go against my conscience for Moral Values; The way my job
provides for steady employment on Security; The chance to do things for other
people for Social Service; The chance to tell people what to do on Authority; The
chance to do something that makes use of my abilities on Ability Utilization; The way
company policies are put into practice for Company Policies; My pay and the amount
of work I do on Compensation;
The chances for advancement on this job on Advancement; The freedom to use my
36
own judgment for Independence; The chance to try my own methods of doing the job
for Creativity; The working conditions for Working Conditions; The way my coworkers get along with each other on Co-workers; The praise I get for doing a good
job on Recognition; and The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job for
Achievement.
Ethics
There are certain ethical protocol that have been followed by the researcher. The
first is soliciting explicit consent from the respondents. This ensures that their
participation to the study is out of their own volition. The researcher also ensured
that the respondents were aware of the objectives of the research and their
contribution to its completion. One other ethical measure exercised by the
researcher is treating the respondents with respect and courtesy (Schutt 2006). This
was done so that the respondents will be at ease and are more likely to give candid
responses to the questionnaire.
There were also ethical measures that have been followed in the data analysis. To
ensure the integrity of data, the researcher checked the accuracy of encoding of the
survey responses. This was carried out to ensure that the statistics generated from
the study are truthful and verifiable (Schutt 2006)..
Method of Data Analysis
The software that has been used for data analysis is SPSS v. 16.0. Both descriptive
and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. The statistical tools were
aligned with the objectives of the research. Objective 1 is as follows: To determine
37
the level of satisfaction of banking and hospitality employees on their intrinsic

rewards. Thus, to answer this, the means and standard deviations of intrinsic
rewards were computed and substantively interpreted. In addition, Objective 2 is: To
ascertain the level of satisfaction of banking and hospitality employees on their
extrinsic rewards. Descriptive statistics, mainly the mean and standard deviation,
were computed for this purpose. The third objective is as follows: To identify the
rewards that are positively correlated with employee performance in the banking and
hospitality sectors. An inferential statistic has been used to ascertain the relationship
between rewards and employee performance. Pearson r was used to determine if
there is a significant, positive association between each reward type and employee
performance. Pearson r is a measure of the degree of association between two
variables which are both measured in either the interval or ratio scale. Its value
ranges from -1.0 to +1.0, with bigger absolute values indicating stronger relationship;
the sign denotes the direction of association. A positive correlation indicates that as
one variable increases, the other also goes up; meanwhile a negative correlation
suggests that as one variable increases, the other correspondingly goes down (Reid
1987). The last objective, Objective 4, is stated as follows: To ascertain if there are
significant differences in the level of satisfaction on rewards between banking and
hospitality sector employees. This has been carried out through the computation of
the t-test for two independent groups, which is used to determine if there are
significant differences between two unrelated or unmatched means (Reid 1987).
Conclusion
The chapter explains the quantitative research approach, and the descriptive-
38
correlational research design which were used to ascertain the influence of rewards
on the performance of employees in the banking and hospitality sectors of Nigeria. A
total of 240 respondents, with 120 from each sector, were enlisted as respondents
through purposive sampling. Secondary data were culled from books, online
references and journal articles to form the theoretical backdrop of the study. Primary
data were yielded from responses to the short form of the MSQ. SPSS v. 16 was
utilized for the computation of descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation coefficients,
and the t-test. Conclusions were drawn from the statistics.
39
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
Introduction
Results
Banking Sector Results
Table 1. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Gender (Banking).
Frequency
Percent
Male
60
50.0
Female
60
50.0
120
100.0
Total
Exactly half of the respondents are males, while the remaining half are females.
Table 2. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Age (Banking).
Frequency
Percent
18-25
18
15.0
26-35
60
50.0
36-45
42
35.0
Total
120
100.0
40
Majority of the respondents from the banking group (50%) are between 25-35 years
old. 35% are between 36-45 years old, while 15% are within the 18-25 years old age
range.
Table 3. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Educational attainment (Banking).
Frequency
Percent
Diploma
60
50.0
Degree
60
50.0
120
100.0
Total
Table 4. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Civil status (Banking).
Frequency
Percent
Single
54
45.0
Married
66
55.0
120
100.0
Total
When broken down by civil status, 55% of the sample is composed of married
employees, while the remainder are single.
Table 5. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Tenure (Banking).
41
Frequency
Percent
1-<3
17
14.2
3-<5
64
53.3
5-<10
38
31.7
10-<15
.8
120
100.0
Total
For the percentage breakdown by tenure of banking employees, 53% have been
with their companies for 3-<5 years. 32% have between 5-<10 years tenure, while
14% have worked for their companies for 1-<3 years. 1% have been with the
company for 10-<15 years.
Table 6. Descriptive statistics: Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (Banking).
Mean
Std. Deviation
Ability Utilization (Intrinsic)
4.05
0.74
Co-workers (Extrinsic)
3.25
0.77
Moral Values (Intrinsic)
3.10
1.10
Achievement (Intrinsic)
3.25
0.83
Creativity (Intrinsic)
2.10
0.83
42
Recognition (Extrinsic)
4.05
0.67
Activity (Intrinsic)
2.80
1.21
Independence (Intrinsic)
3.05
0.98
Responsibility (Intrinsic)
2.30
0.96
Advancement (Extrinsic)
2.25
0.95
Security (Intrinsic)
4.15
0.57
(Extrinsic)
3.40
0.97
Authority (Intrinsic)
4.05
0.67
Social Service (Intrinsic)
4.20
0.60
(Extrinsic)
2.80
0.68
Company Policies (Extrinsic)
3.95
0.74
Social Status (Intrinsic)
2.60
0.80
Variety (Intrinsic)
2.55
0.81
Compensation (Extrinsic)
2.80
0.88
Working Conditions (Extrinsic)
2.50
0.93
SupervisionHuman Relations
Supervision--Technical
For banking employees intrinsic rewards, the following were rated as satisfactory:
Social Service (X=4.20, sd=0.60); Security (X=4.15, sd=0.57); Ability Utilization
43
(X=4.05, sd=0.74); and Authority (X=4.05, sd=0.67). Moreover, the following intrinsic
rewards were rated as neutral: Achievement (X=3.25, sd=0.83); Moral Values
(X=3.10, sd=1.10); Independence (X=3.05, sd=0.98); Activity (X=2.80, sd=1.21);
Social Status (X=2.60, sd=0.80); and Variety (X=2.55, sd=0.81). Finally, the following
were rated as dissatisfactory: Responsibility (X=2.30, sd=0.96); and Creativity
(X=2.10, sd=0.83).
The following external rewards were assessed as satisfactory: Recognition (X=4.05,

sd=0.67); and Company Policies (X=3.95, sd=0.74). Moreover, these extrinsic
rewards were evaluated as neutral: Supervision-HumanRelations (X=3.40, sd=0.97);
Co-workers (X=3.25, sd=0.77); Supervision--Technical (X=2.80, sd=0.68);
Compensation (X=2.80, sd=0.88); and Working Conditions (X=2.50, sd=0.93). One
factor has been rated as dissatisfactory: Advancement (X=2.25, sd=0.95).
Table 7. Descriptive statistics: Overall satisfaction and performance (Banking).
Mean
Std. Deviation
Overall
4.25
0.63
Perform
4.20
0.68
Overall satisfaction of banking employees was assessed as satisfactory (X=4.25,

sd=.63), while their self-rated performance was likewise rated as satisfactory
(X=4.20, sd=.68).
44
Table 8. Correlations: Pearson r for rewards and performance (Banking).
Perform
**
.000
**
.001
**
.001
.677
.289
.311
-.178
-.035
.052
.700
**
.000
**
.001
**
.008
**
.006
**
.000
**
.000
.639
.293
-.242
-.247
.313
.824
SupervisionHuman
.000
**
Relations (Extrinsic)
.487
.198
.030
45
**
.516
(Extrinsic)
.814
-.022
Company Policies
(Extrinsic)
Variety (Intrinsic)
.193
.120
-.037
.689
**
.000
.042
.440
-.186
Working Conditions
(Extrinsic)
.000
.385
.080
The following intrinsic rewards were found significantly and positively correlated with
self-reported performance for the year: Security (r=.824, p=.000); Ability Utilization
(r=.677, p=.000); Social Service (r=.516, p=.000); Variety (r=.440, p=.000); Moral
Values (r=.311, p=.001); Activity (r=.293, p=.001); and Authority (r=.198, p=.030)
On the other hand, the following external rewards were found to be significantly and
positively correlated with performance: Recognition (r=639, p=.000); SupervisionHuman Relations (r=.487, p=.000); Advancement (r=.313, p=.000); and Co-workers
(r=.289, p=.001).
Hospitality Sector Results
Table 9. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Gender (Hospitality).
46
Frequency
Percent
Male
66
55.0
Female
54
45.0
120
100.0
Total
For the breakdown by gender of hospitality employees, 55% of the respondents from
the hospitality industry are male, while 45% are female.
Table 10. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Age (Hospitality).

Frequency
Percent
18-25
24
20.0
26-35
72
60.0
36-45
18
15.0
5.0
120
100.0
>45
Total
On the age breakdown of hospitality employees, 60% are within 26-35 years old.
Moreover, 20% are between 18-25 years old, while 15% are within the 36-45 years
old age range. Only 5% of the respondents are greater than 45 years old.
Table 11. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Educational attainment

(Hospitality).
Frequency
Percent
Diploma
48
40.0
Degree
72
60.0
120
100.0
Total
47
60% of the hospitality sector employees have degrees, while 40% have diplomas.
Table 12. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Civil status (Hospitality).

Frequency
Percent
Single
72
60.0
Married
48
40.0
120
100.0
Total
The percentage breakdown for civil status shows that 60% of the respondents are
single, while 40% are married.
Table 13. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Tenure (Hospitality).
Frequency
Percent
1-<3
27
22.5
3-<5
60
50.0
5-<10
32
26.7
10-<15
.8
120
100.0
Total
The tenure breakdown for hospitality employees shows that 50% of the respondents
have worked for their companies from 3-<5 years. 27% fall within the5-<10 years
range. 22% have been with their companies for 1-<3 years, and 1% has worked for
his company for 10-<15 years.
48
Table 14. Descriptive statistics: Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (Hospitality).
Mean
Std. Deviation
3.20
0.75
3.20
0.68
3.05
0.98
3.95
0.67
2.55
0.92
3.65
0.73
2.70
0.90
3.95
0.67
2.35
0.86
2.40
0.92
3.00
0.78
4.10
0.54
3.75
0.63
3.65
0.91
SupervisionHuman
49
(Extrinsic)
3.00
0.78
Company Policies (Extrinsic)
2.90
0.83
2.75
0.95
Variety (Intrinsic)
3.80
0.75
3.10
0.95
2.90
1.14
Working Conditions
(Extrinsic)
For the internal rewards, hospitality sector employees have rated the following as
satisfactory: Achievement (X=3.95, sd=0.67); Independence (X=3.95, sd=0.67)
Variety (X=3.80, sd=0.75); Authority (X=3.75, sd=0.63); and Social Service (X=3.65,
sd=0.91).In addition, the following internal rewards were rated as neutral: Ability
Utilization (X=3.20, sd=0.75); Moral Values (X=3.05, sd=0.98); Security (X=3.00,
sd=0.78); Social Status (X=2.75, sd=0.95); Activity (X=2.70, sd=0.90); and Creativity
(X=2.55, sd=0.92) Finally, Responsibility (X=2.35, sd=0.86) was assessed as
dissatisfactory.
The external rewards, on the other hand, were rated by hospitality employees as
follows. Supervision-HumanRelations (X=4.10, sd=0.54) and Recognition (X=3.65,
sd=0.73) were assessed as satisfactory. In addition, Co-workers (X=3.20, sd=0.68);
50
Compensation (X=3.10, sd=0.95); Supervision--Technical (X=3.00, sd=0.78);

Company Policies (X=2.90, sd=0.83); and Working Conditions (X=2.90, sd=1.14)
were rated as neutral. Lastly, Advancement (X=2.40, sd=0.92) has been assessed
as dissatisfactory.
Table 15. Descriptive statistics: Overall satisfaction and performance (Hospitality).
Mean
Std. Deviation
Overall
4.10
.70
Perform
4.20
.68
The mean for overall satisfaction suggests that hospitality employees are satisfied
(X=4.10, sd=.70). They have also rated their performance as satisfactory.
Table 16. Correlations: Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards vs. performance (Hospitality).
Perform
.020
**
.457
.831
.000
51
.061
.511
**
.000
.000
**
.004
.012
**
.000
**
.000
.353
-.336*
-.264
-.229
.353
-.467
.032
.190
SupervisionHuman
.727
.037
.000
**
.356
**
.355
.032
SupervisionTechnical
(Extrinsic)
Variety (Intrinsic)
.725
.301
-.095
Company Policies
(Extrinsic)
.000
.176
.124
-.078
.079
.396
.392
52
-.031
Working Conditions
.735
.324
.091
(Extrinsic)
The following were the intrinsic rewards that are significantly and positively
correlated with performance as rated by hospitality employees: Authority (r=.355,
p=.000); Achievement (r=.353, p=.000); Independence (r=.353, p=.000); and
Security (r=.190, p=.037). On the other hand, the extrinsic factors which yielded a
significant and positive correlation with performance are as follows: SupervisionHumanRelations (r=.356, p=.000); and Co-workers (r=.457, p=.000).
Table 17. Descriptive statistics: Overall mean for intrinsic and extrinsic rewards
(Banking vs. hospitality sectors).
Group
Intrinsic
Extrinsic
Mean
Std. Deviation
Banking
3.18
.33
Hospitality
3.22
.29
Banking
3.00
.38
Hospitality
3.19
.39
Satisfaction over intrinsic rewards was rated as satisfactory by both sectors as

satisfactory. Moreover, extrinsic rewards were also assessed as satisfactory, based
on their averages.
Table 18. T-test: Satisfaction over intrinsic and extrinsic rewards.
53
Sig. (2-tailed)
Intrinsic
-1.04
.299
Extrinsic
-3.72
.000
The t-test shows that there are no significant differences between banking and
hospitality sectors satisfaction over intrinsic rewards (t=-1.04, p=.932). However,
hospitality employees seem to be more satisfied with their extrinsic rewards
compared to banking sector employees (t=-3.72, p=.00).
Discussion
The following discussion juxtaposes the results of the present research with those
found from past empirical studies. This analysis has been carried out for each
objective:
Objective 1: To determine the level of satisfaction of banking and hospitality
employees on their intrinsic rewards.
The current study found that for banking employees intrinsic rewards, the following
were rated as satisfactory: Social Service; Security; Ability Utilization; and Authority.
In addition, the following intrinsic rewards were rated as neutral: Achievement; Moral
Values; Independence; Activity; Social Status; and Variety. Finally, the following was
rated as dissatisfactory: Responsibility.
54
These results suggest that the banking employees in Nigeria are satisfied because
they have the chance to do things for other people. They also have a strong sense of
stability in terms of their employment and feel that they have the chance to manage
other people. There is uncertainty in terms of the feeling of accomplishment which
they get from their jobs. There is also neutrality about doing things that are aligned to
ones values and the freedom to use their personal discretion on the job. They are
also not sure about being preoccupied at all times; of being acknowledged in the
community; and the opportunity to do varied tasks. Lastly, they are not satisfied with
being able to do things autonomously and to exercise their own way of doing things
on the job.
For the intrinsic rewards, hospitality sector employees have rated the following as
satisfactory: Achievement; Independence; Variety; Authority; and Social Service.
Moreover, the following internal rewards were rated as neutral: Ability Utilization;
Moral Values; Security; Social Status; and Activity. Finally, Responsibility; and
Creativity were assessed as dissatisfactory.
The hospitality sector employees in Nigeria, on the other hand, feel that they have a
strong sense of achievement in their jobs and that they are permitted to exercise
their own sense of judgment. They are also satisfied with the chance to do varied
tasks and being able to manage the activities of other people. They are also satisfied
with being able to do service for others. They are uncertain about making full use of
their competencies and with the alignment of their job to their values. They are also
neutral about the sense of stability of their jobs; being recognized in the community;
55
and being preoccupied with activities at all times. Finally, they have expressed
dissatisfaction on being able to use their own methods in doing tasks.
The results for Objective 2, on extrinsic rewards, shall be discussed before

comparing the outcomes to literature.
Objective 2: To ascertain the level of satisfaction of banking and hospitality
employees on their extrinsic rewards.
The following extrinsic rewards were assessed as satisfactory by banking employees

in Nigeria: Recognition; and Company Policies. In addition, these external rewards
were evaluated as neutral: Supervision-Human Relations; Co-workers; Supervision-Technical; Compensation; and Working Conditions. One factor has been rated as
dissatisfactory: Advancement.
These results suggest that banking employees are satisfied with the praise that they
get for good performance. They are likewise satisfied with the way their company
practices are exercised. They have also expressed uncertainty over the way their
superiors managed them and how they get along with their co-workers. The
technical competence of their superiors has also been a neutral area as well as their
pay and work conditions. Finally, an area of dissatisfaction is the chances for moving
up on the job.
56
The extrinsic rewards, on the other hand, were rated by hospitality employees as
follows. Supervision-HumanRelations and Recognition were assessed as
satisfactory. In addition, Co-workers; Compensation; Supervision--Technical;
Company Policies; and Working Conditions were rated as neutral. Lastly,
Advancement has been assessed as dissatisfactory.
These outcomes indicate that hospitality sector employees are satisfied with the
management of their bosses and the praise they receive good job. There is also
neutrality on how they get along with co-workers, their pay, and the technical
competence of their bosses. They are also uncertain about their working conditions.
Similar to banking employees, they are also dissatisfied with the opportunity that
their company accords to them for moving up the corporate ladder.
These results show that there are areas of improvement for both banking and
hospitality employees rewards management. This is particularly important because
rewards are an effectual means of retaining employees and averting burnout on the
job. According to Schaufeli et al. (2002), the burnout commonly experienced by
employees at work can be countered by rewards. Effective management of rewards
can help preclude feelings of lack of fulfilment, their negativity, and their lack of
dedication and spirit when performing their tasks.
Both professions would benefit greatly if companies and leaders alike took time to
encourage their employees to give the best possible service to customers, who have
begun to demand more exemplary service. Because both sectors are involved with
service, it is important to reward them adequately to reinforce a strong service quality
57
orientation (Wong et al., 1999). Thus managers and leaders alike need to encourage
better service among their employees, and to match their interests with the
customers (Bitner et al 1994). This is effectively carried out when employees
perceive that the amount of effort they put on the job is compensated through
rewards.
As for satisfaction, the factors influencing it are achievement among employees;
recognition for these achievements; the nature of the work; the level of responsibility;
and finally opportunities for advancement and growth. All in all, management needs
to be aware of the aforementioned factors if they want their companies to be
successful and if they want the workforce to perform well. Rather than merely
avoiding dissatisfaction, these factors also need to consider the very nature of the
work itself if satisfaction is to be promoted. More than anything, managers need to
make sure that work is as enriching an experience as possible for their employees,
which is a continuous process. According to Herzberg (1968), the more challenging
the job, the more driven the employee would be to give his best. And when his
abilities are shown to be improving, he can then rightly be given more important
responsibilities and tasks.
In cases the company is having some trouble suiting employees in such a way that
they take full advantage of their abilities while on the job, it may help if they make the
task automated. The employee in question could also possibly be replaced with
someone whose level of competence is more appropriate. In short, a motivation
problem clearly exists when an employee has trouble using the full extent of his
abilities. And all in all, more than external factors within the managements control, it
58
is the employees abilities and efforts that determine whether tasks succeed or fail
(Herzberg, 1968). These suggest that neutral and dissatisfactory areas must be
addressed by banking and hospitality management.
Objective 3: To identify the rewards that are positively correlated with employee
performance in the banking and hospitality sectors.
For banking employees, the following intrinsic rewards were found significantly and
positively correlated with self-reported performance for the year: Security; Ability
Utilization; Social Service; Variety; Moral Values; Activity; and Authority. On the other
hand, the following extrinsic rewards were found to be significantly and positively
correlated with performance: Recognition; Supervision-Human Relations;
Advancement; and Co-workers.
Analyzing these results against the means gathered from the banking employees,
bank management needs to leverage on the following intrinsic rewards: employees
security, ability utilization, social service, and authority. However, there needs to be
efforts to improve on variety, moral values, and activity. Moreover, they need to
leverage on their employees strong sense of recognition. They likewise need to
improve on supervision-HR, and on getting along with co-workers. These factors
increase sense of performance for the sector, and must thus be enhanced.
59
On the other hand, hospitality employees have rated the following intrinsic rewards
to be significantly and positively correlated with performance as rated by hospitality
employees: Authority; Achievement; Independence; and Security. On the other hand,
the extrinsic factors which yielded a significant and positive correlation with
performance are as follows: Supervision-Human Relations; and Co-workers.
When analyzed side by side with the averages of these factors, it may be concluded
that authority, achievement, and independence are strong areas for the hospitality
sector in terms of intrinsic rewards. However, security must be improved because it
is neutrally assessed only and is a correlate of high performance. Moreover, for
extrinsic rewards, supervision-HR is a strength and co-workers is a development
area.
Pay and benefits was not even found to be a determinant of employee performance
in the present study. This is supported by Nelson and Spitzer (2002) who advise
against resorting to cash rewards to try and motivate employees. While employees
actually welcome and are appreciative of cash rewards, they might then miss the
whole point of the reward. Bowen (2000) likewise stresses the importance of
awareness of nonrewards, which should be used only in special situations. Being
passive, they are highly unlikely to reinforce or to encourage positive behaviours.
And even when the applicable satisfiers are all present, managers still need to be
aware that motivators may vary from employee to employee. Bruce and Pepitone
(1998) recommend that managers to this by simply asking the employees for their
job expectations and desires, as well as for their ideal working conditions. The sense
60
of advancement of employees, in the present study, has been rated as

dissatisfactory and yet has not been found to be correlated with employee
performance. Managers also need to know whether their employees would be more
satisfied if more responsibility were given to them, and if the prospect of promotion
would be an incentive for them to work harder. Nelson and Spitzer (2002) agree that
a trial and error method is best when it comes to finding out what motivates
employees; that is, try and try until they get it right.
Objective 4: To ascertain if there are significant differences in the level of satisfaction
on rewards between banking and hospitality sector employees.
Satisfaction over intrinsic rewards was rated as satisfactory by both sectors as
satisfactory. Moreover, extrinsic rewards were also assessed as satisfactory, based
on their averages. Hospitality sector employees seem more satisfied with their
extrinsic rewards.
Bartol and Srivastava (2002) speculate that rewards may be the way through which
managers tell their employees that their behaviour is being observed and shall be
rewarded if deserving. Such favourable, deserving behaviours could then be used by
the company to match its interests both with its employees and consumers.
According to Eisenberger et al. (1998), when rewards are given to employees who
deserve it, the company becomes capable of directing, sustaining and motivating
good behaviour and values. Such things as knowledge sharing, creativity and
performance improvement fall under this heading, as does increased satisfaction
among customers. Chiang and Birtch (2010) thus stress the need for managers to
61
understand the importance of rewards with respect to service quality orientation

among employees, which itself is directly responsible for deciding whether the
provided service is excellent or lackluster.
Buick and Thomas (2001) focused on burnout intensity among employees in the
hotel sector, a subsection of the hospitality industry. The results showed that burnout
was more likely and more intense in females than it was in males. This study, which
also studied burnout among managers, pinpointed the cause for their burnout as
coming from lack of support from colleagues, subordinates and family. These results
are supported by the present study which found that relationship with co-worker and
boss were both rated neutrally only. Cordes and Dougherty (1993) likewise attested
to this viewpoint in a similar study. Specifically, their research attributed burnout to
the emotional exhaustion that comes with working for a company.
Goodwin and Gremler (1996) note that the banking industry in particular badly needs
satisfaction and motivation among its employees, whose performance in turn affects
satisfaction among customers. Adelman et al (1994) also agree, and add that the
interpersonal relationships between customers and staff also play a part in
determining the customers satisfaction. These results are only partly supported by
the present research since co-worker relationship was rated neutrally but superior
relationship has been assessed as satisfactory. And according to Reynolds and
Beatty (1999), such relationships help promote value perception with respect to
services and products. Customers are more satisfied when value perception is high,
which means that on the whole it is good for business.
Viteles (1932) also rejects the idea that money is the key to ensure consistent
62
productivity among employees. Instead, he notes that managers need to take other
factors into account, such as job security, recognition and status. Even in the early
20th century, most research had already been attesting that more satisfied
employees were more likely to perform well on the job, and that the most productive
employees were often the happiest ones. However, such a viewpoint has since been
refuted by more recent studies.
Johnson et als. (2010) study sought to determine how motivation could heighten a
sense of commitment among employees. The researchers discovered that
motivation was more likely when employees experienced collective interaction by
working within groups. This was said to be a result of their consciousness of the
various social norms, values, goals especially those espoused by the company. This
notion of identification was also cited by OReilly and Chatman (1986) as a
motivating factor in itself. Values are particularly important for banking employees,
since it has been found to be significantly and positively correlated with performance.
63
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
The present research aimed to determine the levels of satisfaction of banking and
hospitality employees in Nigeria on their intrinsic and extrinsic rewards.The present
study concludes that banking employees intrinsic rewards, the following are
satisfactory: Social Service; Security; Ability Utilization; and Authority. In addition, the
following intrinsic rewards were rated as neutral: Achievement; Moral Values;
Independence; Activity; Social Status; and Variety. Finally, the following was rated as
dissatisfactory: Responsibility. In addition, hospitality sector employees have rated
the following as satisfactory: Achievement; Independence; Variety; Authority; and
Social Service. Moreover, the following internal rewards were rated as neutral: Ability
Utilization; Moral Values; Security; Social Status; and Activity. Finally, Responsibility;
and Creativity were assessed as dissatisfactory.
As regards Objective 2 which aimed to describe their satisfaction with extrinsic
rewards, it has been found that the following extrinsic rewards were assessed as
satisfactory by banking employees in Nigeria: Recognition; and Company Policies. In
addition, these external rewards were evaluated as neutral: Supervision-Human
Relations; Co-workers; Supervision--Technical; Compensation; and Working
Conditions. One factor has been rated as dissatisfactory: Advancement. The
extrinsic rewards, on the other hand, were rated by hospitality employees as follows.
Supervision-Human Relations and Recognition were assessed as satisfactory. In
64
addition, Co-workers; Compensation; Supervision--Technical; Company Policies;

and Working Conditions were rated as neutral. Lastly, Advancement has been
assessed as dissatisfactory.
Yet another objective of the study is to determine the factors which are significantly
rated to employee performance in both sectors. For banking employees, the
following intrinsic rewards were found significantly and positively correlated with selfreported performance for the year: Security; Ability Utilization; Social Service;
Variety; Moral Values; Activity; and Authority. On the other hand, the following
extrinsic rewards were found to be significantly and positively correlated with
performance: Recognition; Supervision-Human Relations; Advancement; and Coworkers. In addition, hospitality employees have rated the following intrinsic rewards
to be significantly and positively correlated with performance as rated by hospitality
employees: Authority; Achievement; Independence; and Security. On the other hand,
the extrinsic factors which yielded a significant and positive correlation with
performance are as follows: Supervision-Human Relations; and Co-workers.
Finally, it has been found that extrinsic rewards are more satisfactory for hospitality
employees than for banking employees.
Recommendations
Analyzing these results against the means gathered from the banking employees,
bank management needs to leverage on the following intrinsic rewards: employees
security, ability utilization, social service, and authority. However, there needs to be
efforts to improve on variety, moral values, and activity. Moreover, they need to
65
leverage on their employees strong sense of recognition. They likewise need to

improve on supervision-HR, and on getting along with co-workers. These factors
increase sense of performance for the sector, and must thus be enhanced.
When analyzed side by side with the averages of these factors, it may be concluded
that authority, achievement, and independence are strong areas for the hospitality
sector in terms of intrinsic rewards. However, security must be improved because it
is neutrally assessed only and is a correlate of high performance. Moreover, for
extrinsic rewards, supervision-HR is a strength and co-workers is a development
area.
These outcomes suggest that banking and hospitality management need to be

properly promote employee performance by the use of rewards. Specifically, hygiene
factors such as the level of supervision and the current work environment need to be
acceptable to the employees, or otherwise changed so that they become more
acceptable. If a manager were to praise his employees performance on a regular
basis while neglecting the working conditions, his praise would be seen as mere lip
service and he would be seen to be insincere.
Both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are equally important in ensuring that employees
do their best. Thus managers need to keep both these factors in mind as they come
up with ways to further motivate their employees into providing excellent service.
Employers should focus on lower level needs before moving on to higher level ones
if the employees were to become more motivated. While an individuals satisfaction
66
does not solely hinge on whether his needs for food, security and shelter are
satisfied, management of banking and hospitality sectors must be keen about
sufficiently addressing these. Thus both hygiene and motivation factors are important
in promoting employee performance.
The current study has certain limitations. First, the sampling technique used is not a
probability sampling method which delimits the generalizability of the conclusions.
Moreover, the conclusions may be made more valid if the samples used are larger in
size. The performance of employees has also been measured through self-report
and this may be more valid if actual performance data are gathered. Future studies
may focus on the influence of rewards on employee performance in other sectors
and other contexts (i.e. countries). The influence of demographic traits on
performance may also be assessed.
67
References
Adams, J. S., 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology, vol. 2. (pp. 2672296). New York: Academic
Press
Adelman, M.B., Ahuvia, A., Goodwin, C., 1994. Beyond smiling social support and
service quality. In: Rust, R., Oliver, R. (Eds.), Service Quality New Directions in
Theory and Practice. Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA, pp. 139171.
Ahmad, S., Ali, I., Rehman, K., Khan, M.A., and Waseemullah, 2010. Insecure job
and low pay leads to job dissatisfaction, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research in Business, vol. 1, No. 11.
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., Karatepe, S.M., Avci, T., 2003. The effect of management
commitment to service quality on employees affective and performance
outcomes. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 272
286.
Bartol, K.M., Srivastava, A., 2002. Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of
organisational reward systems. Journal of Leadership and Organisation Studies,
vol. 9, pp. 6476.
Bettencourt, L.A., Brown, S.W., 2003. Role stressors and customer-oriented
boundary- panning behaviours in service organisations. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 394408
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H., Mohr, L.A., 1994. Critical service encounters: the
68
employees viewpoint. Journal of Marketing , vol. 58, pp. 95106.

Blau, P. M., 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley
Bowen, B.B, 2000. Recognizing and rewarding employees, McGraw-Hill.
Bruce, A. and Pepitone, J.S., 1998. Motivating employees, McGraw-Hill.
Buchanan, B., 1974. Building organisational commitment: The socialization of
managers in work organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 19, pp.
533546.
Buick, I., Thomas, M., 2001. Why do middle managers in hotels burn out?
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 13, no. 6, pp.
304309.
Carlson, E.D., 1974. Evaluating the impact of information systems. In: Senn, J.A.
(Ed.), Information Systems Management. Wadsworth Publishing Company,
Belmont, CA.
Chen, C. C., 1995. New trends in reward allocation preferences: A Sino-US
comparison. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 38, pp. 408428
Chiang, F.F.T., and Birtch, T.A., 2010. Reward climate and its impact on service
quality orientation and employee attitudes, International Journal of Hospitality
Management.
Chiang, F.T., and Birtch, T.A., 2009. The moderating roles of job control and work
life balance practices on employee stress in the hotel and catering industry.
69
International Journal of Hospitality Management , vol. 29, pp. 2532.

Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
London: Sage.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2003). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and
issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 253-291.
Deutsch, M., 1975. Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be
used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, vol. 31, pp.
137150.
Dewhurst, M., Guthridge, M., Mohr, E., 2010. Motivating people: getting beyond
money, Business Source Complete.
Eccles, R.G., 1991. The performance measurement manifesto. Harvard Business
Review (JanuaryFebruary), pp. 18.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Pretz, J., 1998. Can the promise of reward increase
creativity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 74, pp. 704714
Goodwin, C., Gremler, D.D., 1996. Friendship over the counter: how social aspects
of service encounters influence consumer service loyalty. In: Brown, S.B.,
Bowen, D., Swartz, T. (Eds.), Advances in Services Marketing and Management,
vol. V. JAI Press, London, pp. 247282.
Gouldner, A.W., 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review , vol. 25, 161179.
70
Harmon, P., 2007. Business process change: (Second Edition) A guide for business
managers and BPM and Six Sigma professionals, Business Process Trends, The
MK/OMG Press.
Herzberg, F. 1968. One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard
Business Review, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 53-62.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B.B., 1959, The motivation to work, New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hinkin, T.R., Schriesheim, 2004. If you dont hear from me you know you are doing
fine. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45, pp. 362372
Johnson, R.A., Neelankavil, J.P., Jadhav, A., 1986. Developing the executive
resource. Business Horizons, pp. 2933.
Johnson, R.E., Chang, C., and Yang, L., 2010. Commitment and motivation at work:
the relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus, Academy of
Management Review, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 226-245.
Jonge, J., Bosma, H., Peter, R., Siegrist, J., 2000. Job strain, effort reward
imabalance and employee well-being: a large scale cross-sectional study, Social
Science & Medicine, 50, pp. 1317-1327.
Kanfer, R., 1990. Motivation theory and industrial and organisational Psychology. In:
M. D. Dunnette, and L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organisational psychology, (2nd edn.) vol. 1, (pp. 75170). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press
71
Kessler, I., Purcell, J., 1992. Performance related pay: objectives and applications.
Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 2, pp. 1633.
La Belle, J.E. 2005. The paradox of safety hopes and rewards: are you rewarding
the right behaviour? Professional Safety, pp. 37-39.
Latham, G.P. and Ernst, C.T., 2006. Keys to motivating tomorrows workforce,
Human Resource Management Review, vol. 16, pp. 181-198.
Magione, T. and Quinn, R., 1975. Job satisfaction, counterproductive behaviour and
drug uses at work, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 60, pp. 114- 116.
Maslow, A.H. , 1973. A theory of human motivation, Psychological Review, vol. 50,
pp. 370- 396.
Nelson, B. And Spitzer, D.R., 2000. The 1001 rewards & recognition fieldbook: the
complete guide, 1st Edition, Workman Publishing Company.
OReilly, C. A., III, & Chatman, J. 1986. Organisational commitment and
psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and
internalization on prosocial behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71,
pp. 492 499.
Peters, L. H., Jackofsky, E. F., & Salter, J. R. (1981). Predicting turnover: a
comparison of parttime and full-time employees. Journal of Occupational
Behaviour, vol. 2, pp. 89-98.
Porter, L. W., 1963. Job attitudes in management: III. Perceived deficiencies in need
fulfillment as a function of line versus type of job, Journal of Applies Psychology,
72
vol. 47, pp. 267-275.

Probst, M.T and Brubaker, T.L, 2001. The effects of job insecurity on employee
outcome: cross-sectional and longitudinal exploration, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 139-159.
Reid, S. (1987). Working with statistics: An introduction to quantitative methods for
social scientists. London: Polity.
Reynolds, K.E., Beatty, S.E., 1999. Customer benefits and company consequences
of customersalesperson relationships in retailing. Journal of Retailing 75 (1),
1132.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzales-Roma , V., Bakker, A.B., 2002. The
measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 7192.
Schutt, R. (2006) Investigating the social world: The process and practice of
research (5th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA.
Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H., 1995. Perceived organisational support and
organisational justice. In R. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organisational
politics, justice, and support: Managing social climate at work (pp. 149164).
Westport, CT: Quorum Press.
Siegrist, J., 1996. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low reward conditions, Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 27-41.
73
Skinner, B.F., 1969. Contingencies of einforcement. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New

York.
Tax, S.S., Brown, S.W., 1998. Recovering and learning from service failure. Sloan
Management Review, 40 (Fall), pp. 7588.
Teddie, C, & Tashakkori, A 2008, Foundations of mixed methods research, Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 173-174.
Viteles, M. S., 1932. Industrial psychology. New York W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Weiss, D., Dawis, R., England, G., & Lofquist, L. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota
Satsifaction Questionnaire (No. 22). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Wemimont, P. F. (1966). Intrinsic and extrinsic factors hi job satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 50, 41-50.
Wong, O.M., Dean, A.M., White, C.J., 1999. Analysing service quality in the
hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality, vol. 9, pp. 136143
74
Appendix A Survey Questionnaire

Part I. Demographics
1. Gender
Male
Female
2. Age
18-25
25-35
36-45
46- above
High School graduate
Diploma
Degree
Masters Degree
Doctorate Degree
3. Educational Attainment
Others, pls. specify ___________
4. Marital Status
Single
Married
5. Tenure
1-<3
3-<5
5-<10
10-<15
15-<20
<20
Part II.
Rate your levels of satisfaction to the following facets of your job. Use the following
scale:
5 = Very Satisfied
75
4 = Satisfied
3 = Neutral
2 = Dissatisfied
1 = Very Dissatisfied
1) Being able to keep busy all the time
5
4
3
2
1
2) The chance to work alone on the job

5
4
3
2
1
3) The chance to do different things from time to time
5 4 3
2
1
4) The chance to be somebody in the community.
5
4
3
2
1
5) The way my boss handles his/her workers.
5
4
3
2
1
6) The competence of my supervisor in making decisions
5
4
3
2
1
7) Being able to do things that dont go against my conscience
5
4
3
2
1
8) The way my job provides for steady employment
5
4
3
2
1
9) The chance to do things for other people
5
4
3
2
1
10) The chance to tell people what to do
5
4
3
2
1
11) The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities
5
4
3
2
1
12) The way company policies are put into practice
5
4
3
2
1
13) My pay and the amount of work I do
5
4
3
2
1
14) The chances for advancement on this job
5
4
3
2
1
76
15) The freedom to use my own judgment

5
4
3
2
1
16) The chance to try my own methods of doing the job
5
4
3
2
1
17) The working conditions
5
4
3
2
18) The way my co-workers get along with each other

5
4
3
2
1
19) The praise I get for doing a good job
5
4
3
2
1
20) The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job
5
4
3
2
1
Your overall satsifaction on the job.
5
Your performance in the past year:

5

Case Study Rewards

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case Study Rewards

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

http://samedayessay.

The Impact of Rewards on Employee Performance: Case Study of Organisations

The Framework Utilized

Among Herzbergs contributions to the management of employee motivation would

(Above: Herzbergs Two Factor Theory).

Objective 4: To ascertain if there are significant differences in the level of satisfaction

Schaufeli et al. (2002) stresses on the importance of rewards in order to combat

exists a divergence of perceptions with regards to service between the customers

Employee Motivation and Company Performance

Compared to Maslows theory on motivation, and even Porters own research

have been considered to be effective in boosting employee performance. According

Use of Rewards in Motivation

According to Adams (1965), when it comes to research studies regarding reward

Siegrist (1996) has established a theoretical model dubbed the Effort-Reward

In order to be effective in rewarding employees so that there is an increased

desirable behaviours more frequently. According to Kessler & Purcell (1992),

Motivation among Nigerian Employees: The Banking and Hospitality Sectors

According to Goodwin & Gremler (1996), the banking industry is in need of

Herzbergs Hygiene and Motivation Factors

workplace as enriching as possible for the employees. This is a process that is

Empirical Studies Related to the Use of Tangible and Intangible Rewards in

Johnson et al. (2010), conducted a study on how an employees motivation can

In a study conducted by Herzberg et al. (1959), there are a number of situational

whose interpretation are derived the conclusions of the study.

hospitality sector, employee motivation and rewards, and determinants of employee

the level of satisfaction of banking and hospitality employees on their intrinsic

Table 2. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Age (Banking).

Table 3. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Educational attainment (Banking).

Table 4. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Civil status (Banking).

Table 5. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Tenure (Banking).

Table 6. Descriptive statistics: Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (Banking).

Ability Utilization (Intrinsic)

Moral Values (Intrinsic)

Social Service (Intrinsic)

Company Policies (Extrinsic)

Social Status (Intrinsic)

Working Conditions (Extrinsic)

The following external rewards were assessed as satisfactory: Recognition (X=4.05,

Table 7. Descriptive statistics: Overall satisfaction and performance (Banking).

Overall satisfaction of banking employees was assessed as satisfactory (X=4.25,

Table 8. Correlations: Pearson r for rewards and performance (Banking).

Moral Values (Intrinsic)

Social Service (Intrinsic)

Social Status (Intrinsic)

Table 10. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Age (Hospitality).

Table 11. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Educational attainment

Table 12. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Civil status (Hospitality).

Table 13. Frequency and percentage breakdown: Tenure (Hospitality).

Table 14. Descriptive statistics: Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (Hospitality).

Ability Utilization (Intrinsic)

Moral Values (Intrinsic)

Social Service (Intrinsic)

Company Policies (Extrinsic)

Social Status (Intrinsic)

Compensation (X=3.10, sd=0.95); Supervision--Technical (X=3.00, sd=0.78);

Table 15. Descriptive statistics: Overall satisfaction and performance (Hospitality).

Moral Values (Intrinsic)

Social Service (Intrinsic)

Social Status (Intrinsic)

Satisfaction over intrinsic rewards was rated as satisfactory by both sectors as

Table 18. T-test: Satisfaction over intrinsic and extrinsic rewards.

The results for Objective 2, on extrinsic rewards, shall be discussed before

The following extrinsic rewards were assessed as satisfactory by banking employees

of advancement of employees, in the present study, has been rated as